Modding shields to actually be shields?

[Jomaha]

Modding shields to actually be shields yeah? Other than that they are particularly useless.

[phenir]

Well they block spores and push out creeper. They also make eggs drop significantly less creeper if they are destroyed above shields. The only thing they don't do is stop blobs. They are good for directing the creeper into a choke point where you can utilize the high dps of mortars.

[Strategic Sage]

They aren't completely useless at all. They are quite effective and stopping moderate amounts of creeper, they are useful for protecting nullifiers or stopping eggs/spores as noted, they in fact do exactly what the name of the unit describes.

[GeneralVeers]

It's not only about stopping creeper. Shields are handy for confining creeper in deep pockets that you can hit with mortars for extra oomph.

[Jomaha]

So instead of being an actual shield, instead they reinvented the meaning of shields by making them shrink under resistance especially when a small wave hits destroying not only those powerful mortars within but also the "shields" themselves.

Yeah I'm gonna mod them, somehow, when I can be bothered.

[75Karsten]

Curious where you came across the concept that a shield is or should be indestructible. As far as I can tell from my research most concepts of s shield provides some protection but eventually fails under sufficient pressure or a severe enough attack.

From a game perspective, making an indestructible shield as a player-buildable and movable object seems a tad over-powered. What prevents you from moving it in place adjacent to a strong emitter to just cheese the emitter?

Anyway, there are plenty of instructions on the wiki on how to create a custom unit. Feel free to create one and implement it.

[pcdeltalink]

*Still remember the "rain" level and how much of a godsend the shields were there.* I'd say they work dang well for what they do.

[GeneralVeers]

Originally posted by 75Karsten:

Curious where you came across the concept that a shield is or should be indestructible.

Competence. A "shield" is only a shield if it actually works. If it's going to break when a Klingon battlecruiser sneezes on it, then it should not be relied on.

It's actually the concept that an energy shield is DEstructible that is an artifice invented for convenience. From the moment the concept of an energy shield was invented, sci-fi writers had a problem. The good guys usually have to be in danger for there to be drama and suspense. Particularly true in modern sci-fi, where the writers always want the good guys to be technologically backwards and at a disadvantage, to get the audience to cheer for the "little guy". To which I say, ♥♥♥♥ that. These days the good guys in almost all sci-fi are idiots, and so I've switched to rooting for the bad guys--which is the reason I have my current username and avatar pic. Wow, ran off on a tangent there. Point was, sci-fi writers have always needed some way for the good guys to be in danger. Some way for a shield to break. So they invented the now-immortal trope that sustained weapons fire will bring a shield down.

If an "indestructible" energy shield exists at all in modern sci-fi, it's only the BAD guys who are allowed to have it. There's no basis for this, other than jackass sci-fi writers who suck at their jobs.

Originally posted by 75Karsten:

From a game perspective, making an indestructible shield as a player-buildable and movable object seems a tad over-powered. What prevents you from moving it in place adjacent to a strong emitter to just cheese the emitter?

Heheh. Funny you should ask that. In a forum for a CREEPER WORLD game.

See, the very first Creeper World game I ever saw ("Creeper World Training Sim" or some such, it was a flash game) DOES have what you described here. If you can get a cannon next to an emitter in CW1, it does exactly what you described: it's sufficient to "cap" the emitter and shut it down permanently. The only catch being that you have to build your energy network over to that cannon to supply it with power.

And I never thought of that concept as game-breaking. In CW, once you get past the initial "creeper rush" and stabilize your position, the game gets easier as you keep going, and if you manage to knock on an emitter's front door, you deserve to win.

"Wow, Veers, wasn't that post kinda overly long.........?"

Yup. It's a hobby of mine. :)

[75Karsten]

Of all of that, all I'd say is that if you are conflating a shield and capping an emitter.. We're not even on the same page.

[GeneralVeers]

Manmade object sits next to emitter. Emitter can't emit.

Functionally identical, far as I'm concerned. :)

[Morphic]

With Creeper World, the Shield operates effectively but nature changes based on the game. With CW4, the Shield is quite useful but is, IMO, conceptually a "Force" Field since it "pushes" Creeper away. Which is why eggs and such are repelled but massive amounts of Creeper and Blobs are able to break through, they have more "force" behind them than the shield.

Personally, CW3's shield felt more like a typical energy shield. Once it was set up, nothing was getting through as long as you kept it sufficiently supplied. So I like the altered mechanics/changes with CW4 as the gameplay feels more dynamic. Albeit annoying/tedious at times but I've felt that way about Creeper World since I started with CW2 lol.

Originally posted by GeneralVeers:

If an "indestructible" energy shield exists at all in modern sci-fi, it's only the BAD guys who are allowed to have it. There's no basis for this, other than jackass sci-fi writers who suck at their jobs.

Sounds to me you have been reading bad Sci-Fi novels and saw an opportunity to vent about it....

There's quite a few novels that have both "bad" and "good" guys using indestructible shields and, arguably games as well. Though, of course, there needs to be ways to circumvent the shield else there could be no conceptual conflict.

Off my head, Dune has shields that block/deflect anything moving at "dangerous speeds". Plus, due to the nature of a laser hitting a field of charged ions/plasma causes intense localized explosions which translates to no one daring to use lasers against someone with a shield. Then games like StarCraft, Supreme Commander, EARTH 21XX, and Total Annihilation have shields with the caveat of requiring energy. Thus the shield can only block/deflect damage equal to its stored energy. Which, mechanically, basically makes the shields "rechargeable HP". Kinda like Mana Shields in fantasy games.

[GeneralVeers]

Originally posted by Morphic:

Sounds to me you have been reading bad Sci-Fi novels and saw an opportunity to vent about it....

That too. Well, more accurately, I've read pretty much EVERY sci-fi novel. :) Including some oldies-but-goodies where it was the Humans who had all the cool stuff.

Originally posted by Morphic:

There's quite a few novels that have both "bad" and "good" guys using indestructible shields and, arguably games as well. Though, of course, there needs to be ways to circumvent the shield else there could be no conceptual conflict.

Naah, there's been good sci-fi where the Humans were untouchable, and the conflict took some form besides people shooting at each other. "Yes, we can use our time machine to erase the Enemy from existence, but is that really a good idea?"

There were a couple episodes of ST:TNG (exactly two, as I recall) where the Enterprise was facing off against a small fleet of enemy ships armed with completely outdated weapons, and who had absolutely no chance against the Enterprise. In one of those episodes, the fact that the enemy ships were completely outclassed, WAS the puzzle the Enterprise crew were trying to figure out. That puzzle was the key to the whole episode.

Creeper-World-wise, a truly invulnerable shield isn't game-breaking if it's done right. Say, it has a high production cost, or uses prohibitive amounts of power. In some strategy games, the high-end superweapons are MEANT to be game-breaking; they're designed specifically as stalemate-breakers and game-enders, in order to discourage turtle tactics and prevent forty-seven-hour statemate games (that last one is not a problem in CW games, though; once you stabilize, you've basically got it in the bag).

EDIT: Suddenly remembered, there have been a couple people in here who complained about that endgame "clear" being rather tedious. Personally I wouldn't mess with the formula, but there are some folks out there who would like some kind of superweapon to finish up a match once you've got it in the figurative bag.

[Strategic Sage]

Perhaps another question is better then. What should an object with the functionality a shield has in CW4 be called, if shield isn't appropriate?

Originally posted by General Veers:

Competence. A "shield" is only a shield if it actually works. If it's going to break when a Klingon battlecruiser sneezes on it, then it should not be relied on.

On this, I'll just say that a great many different types of equipments have been called shields in human history. They have had widely varying utility, effectiveness, reliability, etc. That doesn't mean they didn't deserve the term 'shield'. That word describes a function, not how good something is at it.

[GeneralVeers]

Originally posted by Strategic Sage:

Perhaps another question is better then. What should an object with the functionality a shield has in CW4 be called, if shield isn't appropriate?

"Repulsor field". Speaking of which, there was a repulsor beam in CW2, I believe.

Originally posted by Strategic Sage:

Originally posted by General Veers:

Competence. A "shield" is only a shield if it actually works. If it's going to break when a Klingon battlecruiser sneezes on it, then it should not be relied on.

On this, I'll just say that a great many different types of equipments have been called shields in human history. They have had widely varying utility, effectiveness, reliability, etc. That doesn't mean they didn't deserve the term 'shield'. That word describes a function, not how good something is at it.

Something I find amusing about the Nullifier in CW4: aside from firing range and build time, it's precisely identical to capping an emitter with a cannon in CW1. It fires at the emitter constantly, prevents any creeper from getting out of the emitter--and stops working if it loses power. In terms of function, they're identical.

I have a preference for the Nullifiers from CW3, because they actually destroyed the emitter. Make stuff go boom. Destroy the Enemy permanently. However, I'm pretty sure I know why KC made nullifiers in CW4 the way they are: CW4 is basically a prequel, and the technology the player uses is clunkier and more primitive than previous games. (I did a double-take when one of the end-game superweapons in the final story mission was a BLIMP..........)

[Morphic]

Originally posted by GeneralVeers:

In some strategy games, the high-end superweapons are MEANT to be game-breaking; they're designed specifically as stalemate-breakers and game-enders, in order to discourage turtle tactics and prevent forty-seven-hour statemate games (that last one is not a problem in CW games, though; once you stabilize, you've basically got it in the bag).

Well there's a difference between a "basic" construction and a Superweapon lol. The Shield in CW is a "basic/advanced" construction and not a Superweapon, IMO. Though I understand the point you are trying to make. Command and Conquer Red Alert 2 Soviet Factions have the "Iron Curtain" which makes Structures/Units in the affected area invulnerable for ~60 seconds. It acts as both a way to hard turtle during an enemy assault or break through someone's turtle defenses. As opposed to using a Nuke that just wipes half the opponents base. So yeah, well versed in many Strategy games. Both Real Time and Turn Based. :D

Originally posted by GeneralVeers:

I have a preference for the Nullifiers from CW3, because they actually destroyed the emitter. Make stuff go boom. Destroy the Enemy permanently. However, I'm pretty sure I know why KC made nullifiers in CW4 the way they are: CW4 is basically a prequel, and the technology the player uses is clunkier and more primitive than previous games. (I did a double-take when one of the end-game superweapons in the final story mission was a BLIMP..........)

Same. When I first started playing CW4 I lost a few maps due to not realizing the Nullifier doesn't destroy an Emitter like in CW3.(Blob killed it at some point and I sat there going "wtf? where did all this creeper come from?!" lol)

IMO, I think a lot of the changes were done in attempt to make the gameplay more dynamic. The prequel/lore is just a nice way to implement it or hand waive changes. Though, for good or ill, the game plays largely the same. As you said, once you stabilize you've won. Which is probably why I both love and hate the gimmicky/timer missions since you generally don't have time to stabilize.

[Lanosa]

I don't think the shield should be better. It's good as it is right now. It's main purpuse is push creeper backwards, and create some sort of safe place so you can push even more. And if you try plant it deep in the creeper, it won't push all back before being destroyed. I think that was your problem.